Bede wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 5:11 am
Rarely will you hear me say that things are that simple, but I will in this case. This grievance gets more absurd the deeper you look into it.
In this integration bid, there are a small handful of pilots who were FO's at SWG who will be captains at WJ. For example, Pilot A has been a SWG FO for 10 years. He's presently on year 10 FO pay and will go to year 10 CA pay once he gets his CA line check done. There's another SWG pilot, call him Pilot B, who was a SWG FO for 5 years, and SWG CA for 7 years for a total of 12 years. He retained his CA spot in the bid. WJ management is paying him at year 7 CA pay.
ALPA will absolutely win this grievance.
I agree, it's a no brainer.
However if it is so obviously easy to win, why would management try ? They would have to payback the affected pilots right ?
Arbitration happened and ALPA didn’t win that grievance.
Didn’t ALPA showed up with the stupidest most retarded and incompetent lawyer and got completely humiliated to the point that they had to withdraw their grievance?
Remember that when you pay your dues next time …
---------- ADS -----------
Complex systems won’t survive the competence crisis
I agree, it's a no brainer.
However if it is so obviously easy to win, why would management try ? They would have to payback the affected pilots right ?
Arbitration happened and ALPA didn’t win that grievance.
Didn’t ALPA showed up with the stupidest most retarded and incompetent lawyer and got completely humiliated to the point that they had to withdraw their grievance?
Remember that when you pay your dues next time …
That’s a pretty accurate summary. He also racked up a several hundred dollar bar tab that all our ALPA dues will cover.
Biff wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2026 10:23 pm
It was withdrawn without prejudice. Why isn’t the MEC refiling it with a different lawyer?
The grievance was based on the article 189(1) of the labour code, which was clear about continuous employment and looked like a homerun. The problem was that article 189 was part of Division IV: Annual Vacations, and was not applicable to wages. That was raised by the WestJet lawyer during opening statements and the whole case collapsed. In the end, the language of the collective agreement was applicable and Length of Service, by definition, did not include time spent as Sunwing.
There was no contingency plan and no obvious plan B, which is why the grievance was withdrawn without prejudice rather than losing it. But even changing the lawyer is not going to make a case, it looks like there was no case from the start.
Biff wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2026 10:23 pm
It was withdrawn without prejudice. Why isn’t the MEC refiling it with a different lawyer?
The grievance was based on the article 189(1) of the labour code, which was clear about continuous employment and looked like a homerun. The problem was that article 189 was part of Division IV: Annual Vacations, and was not applicable to wages. That was raised by the WestJet lawyer during opening statements and the whole case collapsed. In the end, the language of the collective agreement was applicable and Length of Service, by definition, did not include time spent as Sunwing.
There was no contingency plan and no obvious plan B, which is why the grievance was withdrawn without prejudice rather than losing it. But even changing the lawyer is not going to make a case, it looks like there was no case from the start.
Translation, “the incompetent ALPA lawyer fucked up a layup and then racked up a $600 bill at the bar on all us union dues payers.”
Biff wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2026 10:23 pm
It was withdrawn without prejudice. Why isn’t the MEC refiling it with a different lawyer?
The grievance was based on the article 189(1) of the labour code, which was clear about continuous employment and looked like a homerun. The problem was that article 189 was part of Division IV: Annual Vacations, and was not applicable to wages. That was raised by the WestJet lawyer during opening statements and the whole case collapsed. In the end, the language of the collective agreement was applicable and Length of Service, by definition, did not include time spent as Sunwing.
There was no contingency plan and no obvious plan B, which is why the grievance was withdrawn without prejudice rather than losing it. But even changing the lawyer is not going to make a case, it looks like there was no case from the start.
Translation, “the incompetent ALPA lawyer fucked up a layup and then racked up a $600 bill at the bar on all us union dues payers.”
I’m confused…he was incompetent because he lost the case that didn’t seem winnable based on the section of the labour code that was mentioned above?
Biff wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2026 10:23 pm
It was withdrawn without prejudice. Why isn’t the MEC refiling it with a different lawyer?
The grievance was based on the article 189(1) of the labour code, which was clear about continuous employment and looked like a homerun. The problem was that article 189 was part of Division IV: Annual Vacations, and was not applicable to wages. That was raised by the WestJet lawyer during opening statements and the whole case collapsed. In the end, the language of the collective agreement was applicable and Length of Service, by definition, did not include time spent as Sunwing.
There was no contingency plan and no obvious plan B, which is why the grievance was withdrawn without prejudice rather than losing it. But even changing the lawyer is not going to make a case, it looks like there was no case from the start.
Translation, “the incompetent ALPA lawyer fucked up a layup and then racked up a $600 bill at the bar on all us union dues payers.”
I’m confused, he was incompetent because he lost the case that didn’t seem winnable based on the section of the labour code that was mentioned above?
On rereading this, my confusion is that there seem to be two different stories here. One is that it was unwinnable and the other is that the “ALPA lawyer fucked up a layup”. The second suggesting that it was an easy win if only we had a different lawyer. If the ALPA lawyer really did @#$! it up, then why wouldn’t you refile with a different lawyer? I don’t get why you would give up on the grievance if there was a chance to win it with different players.
I think both are true. My understanding is that the case was not winnable to start with, but would article 189 have applied it would have been an easy win.
ALPA legal worked on that case without making sure that this article, which was the whole foundation of the grievance, was applicable. Which seems unreal since anyone reading the code could, and should, have spotted the problem. It was not a secret trick, it is simply that the title of the applicable division was written before article 183, 6 or 7 pages prior to article 189.
In hindsight, none of the other stakeholders - grievance committee or Sunwing pilots involved - identified the problem either. That makes me think that too many people thought it was easy and started counting the money instead of doing the grind work. Too much “it’s common sense” and not enough law articles.
If someone could come up with a way to win that case, I imagine the grievance would restart, but it is clear that this case was rotten from the start and never was winnable. It is also clear that ALPA legal in general, and that lawyer in particular, messed up big time.
Out of curiosity, what is management’s position on AR? Would they like it to continue?
What is ALPA’s position on it? Are they stuck between representing the supposed rights of the(less than 100 I think) AR pilots and the other over 2500 WestJet pilots that would oppose the program’s continuation?
